| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Srini Raghavan <sixersrini(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Database file copy |
| Date: | 2011-01-13 20:18:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1294949856-sup-7344@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of jue ene 13 00:05:53 -0300 2011:
> Srini Raghavan wrote:
> > Thank you very much for reviewing, appreciate the feedback.? As pointed out by
> > you, it is always best to test it out with the latest version, so, I tested the
> > same approach with postgres 9.0.2 on windows just now, and it works!
> >
> >
> > I forgot to mention earlier that in addition to setting vacuum_freeze_table_age
> > to 0, vacuum_freeze_min_age must also be set to 0 to reset xmin with the
> > FrozenXid.
>
> I wonder if you should be using VACUUM FREEZE instead of having to set
> variables.
The documentation says you shouldn't:
FREEZE
Selects aggressive "freezing" of tuples. Specifying FREEZE is equivalent to
performing VACUUM with the vacuum_freeze_min_age parameter set to zero. The
FREEZE option is deprecated and will be removed in a future release; set the
parameter instead.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/sql-vacuum.html
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-01-13 20:18:06 | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-13 20:11:51 | Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups |